State ex rel. Pringle v. Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc., 56578

• Decision Date: 26 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 56578,56578
• Citation: 693 P.2d 1163,236 Kan. 544
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, ex rel., William PRINGLE, County Attorney, Barton County, Kansas, Appellee, v. HERITAGE BAPTIST TEMPLE, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1163

693 P.2d 1163

236 Kan. 544

STATE of Kansas, ex rel., William PRINGLE, County Attorney Barton County, Kansas, Appellee, v. HERITAGE BAPTIST TEMPLE, INC., et al., Appellants.

No. 56578.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 26, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 7 of the Kansas Bill of Rights prohibit governmental establishment of religion and guarantee the free exercise of religion by all persons.

2. The free exercise of religion means freedom to believe and freedom to act. Freedom to believe is absolute, while freedom to act is subject to governmental regulation for the protection of society.

3. Where governmental regulation comes into conflict with the freedom to practice religion the justification for the regulation is dependent upon three factors: (1) Does a genuine religious liberty claim exist and, if so, does the State burden violate that liberty; (2) if the State violates the liberty right, is it justified by a compelling state interest; and (3) does the State use the least intrusive means of regulation?

4. The operation of a child day-care center for hire for both members and nonmembers of a church congregation based on economic needs of a community is held not to be a religious practice and thus is not exempt from State regulation.

5. A party lacks standing to challenge administrative regulations where it has not sought a license by which to avail itself of the administrative remedies open to it.

David C. Gibbs of Gibbs & Craze, L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, argued the cause, and Daniel Jon Loomis, Cleveland, Ohio, of the same firm, and John L. Horner, Great Bend, were with him on the briefs for appellants.

Emily E. Cameron, Sp. Asst. Co. Atty., argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

HERD, Justice:

This is an action by the State of Kansas to enjoin Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc., from operating a day-care center without a license as required by K.S.A. 65-501 et seq. The trial court granted the injunction and this appeal followed.

Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc., was organized in Great Bend, as a Kansas corporation in 1950 under the name of the Harrison Street Baptist Church. In 1982, the church corporate name was changed to Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc.

The church began operating a day-care center for children in 1974. The center was in operation from 1974 until 1979. During that time it was licensed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. In July of 1979, the church closed its day-care center and re-opened it in 1980, at which time it obtained a license which was in effect until April 15, 1983.

In April of 1983 the Temple did not renew its license, but continued to operate the day-care center without it. Heritage Baptist Temple claims it does not need a license because its operation is not a day-care center but is, rather, a "preschool ministry."

At the time of the trial, Heritage's day-care center had twenty-seven children enrolled in its program. Only six of those children's parents were members of the Heritage Baptist congregation. The hours of operation were 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and a fee was charged for the services.

The district court held Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc.'s day-care center came within the definition of K.A.R. 28-4-420(d) and that Heritage did in fact operate a day-care center without a license from the State of Kansas as required by K.S.A. 65-501 et seq. In granting the injunction the court further held Heritage Baptist had not proven there was a genuine religious liberty claim which would prevent the State from requiring licensure.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in finding Heritage Baptist Temple did not have a genuine religious liberty claim which would preclude the State from requiring its children's day-care center to be licensed.

Appellants contend the teachings of the Heritage Baptist Temple regarding its religious doctrines were not accepted by the court even though appellants presented sufficient evidence on their beliefs to invoke constitutional protection.

Evidence of the church's doctrine was presented at trial by the Heritage Baptist Temple minister, Rev. Rick Carter. Rev. Carter testified the church decided it would no longer seek licensing from the State because it did not view the day-care center as an activity open to state regulation since it was a part of the church's ministry. As part of the church ministry, Rev. Carter stated the church believed it to be a religious activity protected by the First Amendment from interference by the State in the way of licensing.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 7 of the Kansas Bill of Rights embrace two concepts: the prohibition of establishment of religion by government, and the guarantee of the free exercise of religion by all persons. It thereby prevents state compulsory religion and also safeguards the free exercise of religion. The instant case falls within the latter category, since appellants allege the free exercise of religion is impermissibly inhibited by the State licensing statutes which operate to supervise day-care centers.

The First Amendment also guarantees two types of religious freedom: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. It is well settled that the freedom to believe is absolute, while the freedom to act is not. See Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto 145, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). Conduct is subject to regulation for the protection of society, thus, the freedom to act, even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, is not totally free of possible legislative restrictions. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).

It is well settled the State may regulate the health, safety and general welfare of society in a manner which may infringe upon religion without unconstitutionally invading liberties protected by the Constitution. Religious practices may be disallowed if there is a compelling State interest which outweighs the interest of the individual and his religious tenet. The necessity of such is clear. The individual cannot be permitted, even on religious grounds, to be the sole judge of his duty to obey laws enacted in the public interest. A State, therefore, may reasonably limit the free exercise of religion for the protection of society. Where the exercise of legislative power comes into conflict with freedom of religion, the validity of legislation will depend upon a weighing of the factors.

The United States Supreme Court has developed a three-part test to resolve conflicts which arise between free exercise of religion and the power of the State to enact legislation for the protection of society. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). The courts must consider: (1) Does a genuine religious liberty claim exist and does the State burden violate that liberty; (2) if it does, is that violation nonetheless justified by a compelling State interest; and (3) did the State use the least intrusive means of regulation?

The first question in this case, then, is whether the maintenance of a day-care center by appellant is a genuine religious belief.

It has been held the government may not question the validity of religious belief, but may question whether the belief is in fact religious. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944).

The district court in this case found the appellants truly believed they should maintain a day-care center. That belief must also be found to be religious in order to be afforded constitutional protection. The lower court here held appellants' genuine belief was not a religious belief. The court based its decision on three findings: (1) Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc., has been licensed for nine years; (2) change in the Church's position on licensure coincided with changes which Rev. Carter, the new minister, had initiated; and (3) the existence of the child-care center was in part based on economic necessity.

Appellants argue that although the center was licensed for nine years, their beliefs developed to the point they had found licensing unacceptable. The change of belief was brought about by Rev. Carter's leadership. As to the court's...